For a few weeks now the United Kingdom has been in huge debate as to whether the super injunctions certain people get out to protect themselves from being reported in the media are actually needed in this day in age, when something as big as a footballer having an alleged affair, gets leaked on social networking sites, such as twitter, and other forums and blogs.
The super injunctions force media outlets such as newspapers and TV from reporting on the holder of the injunction, even to the point of being gagged from saying if they actually have an injunction or not. These laws only apply in the UK, and places such as America are allowed to publish whatever they please, as the injunctions do not take affect.
When watching the news, or reading a paper, they will either blank out the photo of the holder of the injunction, or they will blank out their name/s. However, today a Scottish newspaper (Scotland Herald), put a face to one of these holders of an super injunction, only covering their eyes with a 'censored' banner.
This all came about after a mysterious twitter account tweeted the name of a football star who was supposedly having an affair with previous Big Brother contestant, Imogen Thomas. The majority of the UK population knew who she was allegedly having an affair with, however, it had not been officially published. This then begs the question, what on Earth is the point in the injunction in the first place?
No comments:
Post a Comment